We’ve noticed that the word “dialogue” is often misunderstood,

misused, and even abused. “Let’s dialogue” has become as common

and meaningless an invitation as “let’s do lunch” and carries with it
nearly the same result: we’re not really going to have lunch together
nor are we really going to engage in authentic dialogue. Indeed, the
process of real dialogue is something that is much easier said than
done; moreover, it is more difficult to do than is meeting someone–
even someone whom you may not like–for lunch!

Why is dialogue easier said than done? Let’s begin to answer this
question by first seeking to understand what is meant by the word at
its “root” level. The
word dialogue actually comes from two Greek words–dia, meaning
“through,” and logos,
most frequently but only roughly translated in English as “the
meaning.” Upon closer examination, the various translations of the
word
logos, a common Greek word (λόγος), reveal that it has deep spiritual
roots. In fact, the concept of logos can be found in most of the great
works describing the history of Christianity, as well as throughout the
literature on religion and Western philosophy.

In this regard, one of the first references to logos as “spirit” came from
the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, around 500 BC. The logos of
Heraclitus
has been interpreted in various ways, as the “logical,” as “meaning,”
and as
“reason”; but, as the German philosopher Martin Heidegger has
pointed out,
“What can logic … do if we never begin to pay heed to the logos and
follow its
initial unfolding?” To Heraclitus, this “initial unfolding” viewed the
logos as responsible for the harmonic order of the universe, as a
cosmic law
which declared that “One is All and Everything is One.”

The doctrine of the logos was the linchpin of the religious thinking by
the
Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, who, while not always
consistent in
his use of the term, clearly established it as belonging only to the
“spiritual” realm. Indeed, Philo sometimes suggested that the logos is
the
“highest idea of God that human beings can attain … higher than a
way of
thinking, more precious than anything that is merely thought.” For
Philo,
the logos was Divine, it was the source of energy from which the
human soul
became manifest. Consistent with the logocentric character of Philo’s
thought, “it is through the Logos and the Logos alone that man is
capable of
participating in the Divine.”

Moreover, Philo’s confidence in the human mind rests on the self-

assurance
that the human intellect is ultimately related to the divine Logos, ” …
being an
imprint, or fragment or effulgence of that blessed nature, or … being a
portion
of the divine ether.” To Philo, the origins of logos as “spirit” were
clearly well documented in the writings of the early Greek philosophers
and the
theologians of his era. This kind of interpretation of logos also received
attention more recently in Karen Armstrong’s bestseller, A History of
God, in which she notes that St. John had made it
clear that Jesus was the Logos and, moreover, that the Logos was
God.

Herein, however, lies the difficulty associated with engaging people in

“authentic” dialogue–it cannot and will not happen if we are “prisoners
of our
thoughts.” In this connection, We learned a long time ago that you can
never
enter into a relationship with others if you believe that you have a
monopoly
on truth. True dialogue will only occur if the participating stakeholders
are
willing to enter the spiritual realm of the logos and “converse,” if you
will,
on this deeper level. Cognitive, so-called “knowledge-based,”
interactions
are not sufficient for authentic dialogue to occur. One must be open
and
willing to entertain a diversity of thought and discover a
common ground by going to a higher ground.

Interpreting logos in this way, that is, viewing it as a manifestation of

spirit or soul, carries with it significant implications, both conceptual
and practical. Authentic dialogue, as a concept, takes on a new and
deeper meaning when it is perceived as a group’s accessing a larger
pool of common spirit through a distinctly spiritual connection between
the members. This suggests more than just collective thinking,
although dialogue certainly is a determinant of such a holistic process.
Spirit flowing through the participants in true dialogue leads to
collective thinking which, in turn, facilitates a common understanding
thereby resulting ideally in what we now refer to as collective learning.
Authentic dialogue, in this regard, enables individuals to acknowledge
that they each are part of a greater whole, that they naturally resonate
with others within this whole, and that the whole is, indeed, greater
than the sum of its various parts.

So now think about times when you have

experienced authenticdialogue. How was/is it different than other forms
of interpersonal communication, including “traditional” business
meetings? Among other things, creating opportunities to engage in
authentic dialogue elevates the human spirit at work and in everyday
life. Unfortunately, this is still easier said than done!